Will Democrats not named Clinton bother to run in 2016?

posted at 9:21 am on August 15, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The start of the 2016 presidential primary season is at least 16 months away, which means that it’s almost too late for Democrats to think about running for President. At least, that’s what Politico’s Alexander Burns suggests — tongue in cheek, no doubt — in his look at potential Democratic contenders whose names don’t sound like, er, Dillary Dinton. A few Democrats haven’t gotten the memo (from 2006?) that 2016 will be a coronation of Hillary Clinton, and are starting to take the first tenuous steps to making the primary a challenge:

But with the next Iowa caucuses a mere 29 or so months away, other, lesser-known Democrats have begun to take tentative steps to raise their national profiles. Last week, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley ventured outside his home state to stump for Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s Senate campaign in New Jersey. This Friday, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a well-liked and quick-witted Democrat* in her second term, will speak at the North Iowa Democrats’ 10th Annual Wing Ding Dinner. The AP reported this week that New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has just inked a book deal to write “a memoir and a call to action for women.”

And on Sept. 15, both Vice President Joe Biden — no stranger to the voters, or to the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Circuit — and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro will both speak at Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin’s annual steak fry, a traditional stop on the road to a presidential primary campaign.

For any non-Clinton Democrat, exploring the 2016 election is something of an exercise in perceived futility, at least for the moment. She looms larger over the primary landscape than any undeclared candidate since perhaps Dwight Eisenhower, and the drop-off in prominence between her and the next tier of Democrats makes it all but impossible for any less famous politician to win consideration as a credible alternative.

That is, unless Clinton doesn’t run.

Or unless she does, and fares as well as she did in 2007-8. The continuing perception of Hillary’s inevitability is simply mystifying. The media had the exact same perception of her at this stage of the 2008 cycle and almost all the way through 2007 until the primaries actually began. At that time, she was just six years past the end of her popular husband’s administration and six years into a Senate career that gave her a separate political identity, plus the Clinton machine was in full stride.

Even with all of that going for her, she lost to a first-term Senate backbencher with an utterly unremarkable career outside of a few speeches. Now Hillary has four years as Secretary of State shepherding a failed foreign policy, which ended on the collapse of an under-protected diplomatic facility in Benghazi that got attacked by terrorist forces unleashed by the Obama administration’s ill-advised intervention in Libya. She will be 69 years old and her husband’s presidency will be as relevant to the electorate as Eisenhower’s was to the Jimmy Carter electorate — literally, with 16 years separating them.

If Hillary proves that invincible, it will be a measure of the rest of the field, and not her. Consider the candidates described by Burns in this article. We have only one governor, Martin O’Malley, who’s not exactly known for his charm and wit. There are two second-term Senators, neither of whom have exerted any kind of leadership within their own party. Next we get the mayor of San Antonio as a presidential contender? What’s next, an Assemblyman from California? Other than O’Malley, the only really legit contender mentioned is Joe Biden, who also lost to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2007-8.

Worried that the foundation’s operating revenues depend too heavily on Mr. Clinton’s nonstop fund-raising, the three Clintons are embarking on a drive to raise an endowment of as much as $250 million, with events already scheduled in the Hamptons and London. And after years of relying on Bruce R. Lindsey, the former White House counsel whose friendship with Mr. Clinton stretches back decades, to run the organization while living part-time in Arkansas, the family has hired a New York-based chief executive with a background in management consulting.

“We’re trying to institutionalize the foundation so that it will be here long after the lives of any of us,” Mr. Lindsey said. “That’s our challenge and that is what we are trying to address.”

But the changing of the guard has aggravated long-simmering tensions within the former first family’s inner circle as the foundation tries to juggle the political and philanthropic ambitions of a former president, a potential future president, and their increasingly visible daughter.

And efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr. Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs. Clinton’s political future, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current foundation employees, donors and advisers to the family. Nearly all of them declined to speak for attribution, citing their unwillingness to alienate the Clinton family.

The NYT runs the scoop in its usual balanced, inoffensive way – but the problem jumps right off the page. The Clintons have never been able to separate the impulses to help others and to help themselves, turning noble philanthropic ventures into glitzy, costly promos for some future campaign (can you remember a time in human history when a Clinton wasn’t running for office?). And their “Ain’t I Great?!” ethos attracts the rich and powerful with such naked abandon that it ends up compromising whatever moral crusade they happen to have endorsed that month. That the Clinton Global Initiative is alleged to have bought Natalie Portman a first-class ticket for her and her dog to attend an event in 2009 is the tip of the iceberg. More troubling is that businessmen have been able to expand the profile of their companies by working generously alongside the Clinton Foundation. …

The cynical might infer from the NYT piece that the Clintons are willing to sell themselves, their image, and even their Foundation’s reputation in exchange for money to finance their personal projects. In Bill’s case, saving the world. In Hillary’s case, maybe, running for president.

It’s nothing new to report that there’s an unhealthy relationship in America between money and politics, but it’s there all the same. While the little people are getting hit with Obamacare, high taxes and joblessness, a class of businessmen enjoys ready access to politicians of both Left and Right that poses troubling questions for how the republic can continue to call itself a democracy so long as it functions as an aristocracy of the monied. Part of the reason why America’s elites get away with it is becuase they employ such fantastic salesmen. For too long now, Bill Clinton has pitched himself, almost without question, as a homespun populist: the Boy from Hope. The reality is that this is a man who – in May 1993 – prevented other planes from landing at LAX for 90 minues while he got a haircut from a Beverley Hills hairdresser aboard Air Force One. The Clintons are populists in the same way that Barack Obama is a Nobel prize winner. Oh, wait…

Don’t expect Hillary to waltz through a coronation, in other words. Just like 2007-8.

Addendum: Klobuchar is personally well-liked, and for good reason; she’s a genuinely nice person. I’ve met her and chatted briefly with her twice. But that’s not the same thing as political charisma, which few Minnesota politicians have, and neither Klobuchar nor Al Franken are an exception to that rule. She succeeds in Minnesota where voters like their politicians to be boring and competent, but she’s not going to garner much support anywhere else.

The cynical might infer from the NYT piece that the Clintons are willing to sell themselves, their image, and even their Foundation’s reputation in exchange for money to finance their personal projects.

How does Hillary run when she did nothing in the Senate and her greatest (and only) accomplishment as SecState was the Benghazi cover-up where she personally stood before the cameras and spun a tale of YouTube videos, spontaneous protests, and locals fighting to rescue the dead ambassador? Yeah, it does make a difference at this point.

But, to the bigger question, who else do the Demonrats have? Biden? Is the public really going to decide they want a continuation of this administration by promoting the VEEP? Frankly, I think Chris Christie is their best shot.

Now Hillary has four years as Secretary of State shepherding a failed foreign policy, which ended on the collapse of an under-protected diplomatic facility in Benghazi that got attacked by terrorist forces unleashed by the Obama administration’s ill-advised intervention in Libya

I find it hard to believe the majority of Democrats even see things that way, considering Hillary’s own words: “What difference at this point does it make?” The liberal blogs blamed congressional GOPers for the lack of sufficient security at Benghazi. And that’ll be trumpeted by Hillary’s camp.

Franken learned that lesson very early in his Senate run. He has gone way out of his way to stay out of the national media; he only does Minnesota media, and even then not much. Ellison represents an extremely liberal district that would elect a ham sandwich as long as it had a (D) after its name. He’d get slaughtered in a statewide election, and he knows it.

Ventura is an exception, but he won a three-way race with 38% of the vote, and lost most of that support in the first two years with his antics.

Oh, the serial adulterer/accused rapist who sold our military secrets to the Chinese for illegal campaign cash, who perjured himself, who sold the Lincoln bedroom for campaign cash, who lied to the American people on national TV, who had his veep illegally raise campaign cash from the White House?

All because he was lucky enough to preside over Newt Gingrich’s* & Bill Gates’** economy.

* Welfare reform helped the economy big-time.

** The advent of the computer age made businesses much more efficient, & Gates sold PCs all over the world, sending much foreign cash to the US.

Franken learned that lesson very early in his Senate run. He has gone way out of his way to stay out of the national media…

That hasn’t gone unnoticed. I figured with Franken’s career in television he’d know how to use media attention to his benefit, but seems to have dropped off the national radar entirely. I can’t even remember the last time I read anything about him in the papers or on the news.

“The bottom line is we’re not broke, there’s plenty of money, it’s just the government doesn’t have it, The government has a right, the government and the people of the United States have a right to run the programs of the United States. Health, welfare, housing – all these things.”

The lsm will gently nudge everyone else off the stage…. they need their first female dem president doncha know

cmsinaz on August 15, 2013 at 9:39 AM

I’ve got to wonder how her candidacy will play with the gals. That super-smart woman power thing has sorta rubbed off despite the MSM trying to prop it up with her State send off adulation. But the reality is that she really hasn’t done anything but kill an ambassador and actively engage in the subsequent cover-up.

Clearly, they’d like to have a female candidate but isn’t there any other Dem female that would garner more enthusiastic support? Debbie Wasserman Schultz, maybe? :0

Here’s my take: If the tech start-up fiasco doesn’t damage him, Corey Booker is being groomed in almost exactly the same way Obama was. Look at the similarities:

Relatively new, politically. Has big money supporting him (Booker has the IT world hosting him). Hollywood/entertainment support (Winfrey and now Eva Longoria is campaigning for him). Being pushed into a short-term senate position (2 years if he wins) by interested, monied parties. Now the NYT publishing articles slamming the Clintons and their foundation. I think Corey is Obama’s heir apparent. Remember, every time Corey said something that could be seen as contradicting the Prez and VJ, Corey got a phone call and walked it back. And,here we are. I could be wrong, but he sure looks like Obama did about 8 years ago.

Well, you don’t have to be so condescending to San Antonio :) . We are the 7th largest city after all. But you’re right that it’s ludicrous to consider Julián Castro a legit contender for prez, given that he’s a just a mayor and he’s only 12 years old.

That jerk is the one who’s been prepping for years. Seriously, after the novice Obama won it do you think those on the Dem side are just going to forget about it and anoint her? She imploded once.

Marcus on August 15, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Yeah, O’Malley is delusional. Just like when, during his scandal, it turned out that David Vitter thought he was destined for the Presidency. O’Malley’s problem is that he’s too much a commie to get support outside rabid blue states. He can campaign for Corey Booker but I’d love to have him trot his gun grabbing ideas out in WV or AR.

Exactly the type of stuff that helped roll out the red carpet to Obama in ’08. Even if you’re not a Christie fan, who would you rather have in the White House, Christie or Clinton?

Just keep that in mind.

JetBoy on August 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM

At that point, what difference would it make? Neither represents the values I have on social or fiscal issues.

My days of party loyalty are over because the GOP establishment has done their best to become Demonrat-lite at the same time they demonize anybody who advocates strong conservative positions on social issues. Amenest for illegals is an outstanding example of why the GOP needs to figure out how to stop alienating its base.

Here’s my take: If the tech start-up fiasco doesn’t damage him, Corey Booker is being groomed in almost exactly the same way Obama was. Look at the similarities:
Relatively new, politically. Has big money supporting him (Booker has the IT world hosting him). Hollywood/entertainment support (Winfrey and now Eva Longoria is campaigning for him). Being pushed into a short-term senate position (2 years if he wins) by interested, monied parties. Now the NYT publishing articles slamming the Clintons and their foundation. I think Corey is Obama’s heir apparent. Remember, every time Corey said something that could be seen as contradicting the Prez and VJ, Corey got a phone call and walked it back. And,here we are. I could be wrong, but he sure looks like Obama did about 8 years ago.
All of this assumes there’s an election, of course.
totherightofthem on August 15, 2013 at 9:59 AM

You are correct about Booker eventually running for the nomination. The question is if it will be 2016 or 2020, but don’t think for a minute that it won’t eventually happen. The Dems are salivating at the thought of ” Da Preezy 2: Electric Boogaloo” happening, because what would be even more historic then the first black president, or event first lady parts president? The SECOND black president!

I don’t know if any deals between O and Hill will hold up, but the guy who is ready made and could walk in and take this from Hillary it the twice elected governor of the most liberal state in the nation, Duvall Patrick. He is Obama’s good buddy, his campaigns run by David Axelrod, and most important to democrats, he is black.

There’s a bunch of democratic hopefuls waiting in the wings, they all think very highly of themselves. Part of the Clinton strategy is to push the ‘inevitability’ of Herself and thereby kill off any competition as early as possible.

Once again, what qualified Hillary to be the Junior Senator from New York? We’ll work our way up the food chain from there.

(Starts array of multiple sundials)

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM

You’re putting the emphasis on the wrong thing. The Constitution spells out what qualifies somebody to be a Senator and the bar is quite low. What got her the job was a series of Presidential pardons, shady deals, and the fact that she ran in a deep blue state. There was a carefully crafted mythology built around the idea that she was super-competent and intelligent. That the only reason why she wasn’t a titan in business, government, or academia was her great sacrifice of supporting her husband’s career.
This was all gilding that has tarnished over time- especially after her dismal job as SecState.

1) First black (well, half black will have to do)
2) First female
3) First Gay (well, first out of the closet gay at any rate)
4) First black female
5) First Hispanic
6) First Muslim (well, out of the closet muslim)

At that point, what difference would it make? Neither represents the values I have on social or fiscal issues.

My days of party loyalty are over because the GOP establishment has done their best to become Demonrat-lite at the same time they demonize anybody who advocates strong conservative positions on social issues. Amenest for illegals is an outstanding example of why the GOP needs to figure out how to stop alienating its base.

Happy Nomad on August 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM

We’d all be hard pressed to find a candidate that we agree 100% with. When it comes down to the general election, it’s a good bet you’ll agree with the GOP’er over the Dem.

I don’t know if any deals between O and Hill will hold up, but the guy who is ready made and could walk in and take this from Hillary it the twice elected governor of the most liberal state in the nation, Duvall Patrick. He is Obama’s good buddy, his campaigns run by David Axelrod, and most important to democrats, he is black.

Rockshine on August 15, 2013 at 10:37 AM

I see Booker being groomed for 2016. He’ll have just as much “experience” in the Senate as Obama did and he’ll have the “advantage” of saying he has executive experience running Newark (unlike Obama who had none). So what if Newark is a sh!t-hole. That doesn’t seem to matter to the lofos. Also, I heard or read somewhere that Patrick isn’t running this time, but I do agree, if he does, he’s the one and Hillary is toast. I still think she’s a complete smoke-screen for the real candidate.

If I give you a forty five percent chance at lethal injection, a fifty percent chance at the electric chair, and a five percent chance for escape, which are you going to vote for? The electric chair, because you’re likely to win?

I see Booker being groomed for 2016. He’ll have just as much “experience” in the Senate as Obama did and he’ll have the “advantage” of saying he has executive experience running Newark (unlike Obama who had none). So what if Newark is a sh!t-hole. That doesn’t seem to matter to the lofos. Also, I heard or read somewhere that Patrick isn’t running this time, but I do agree, if he does, he’s the one and Hillary is toast. I still think she’s a complete smoke-screen for the real candidate.

totherightofthem on August 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Yep; he’s got it hands-down if he’s bold enough to go to the black community and say “why would we want to go back to being ruled by old white people?”

Deval Patrick, Gov. Of MA, wants to run for do nothing figurehead of the USA. Only if it is easy, and if David Axelrod will get behind him and run everything. He and his wife are already good at going on vacation, and they pay for it themselves. He likes raising taxes and blaming it on someone else. He averts his eyes, and says he has nothing to do with any of the corruption going on in the democrat party in MA. He would make a good national Daddy to hand out the goodies and talk about Fairness, Equality, failures of Human Understanding, and guilt (he owns two BIG homes) and blame.

Well, he can’t be very bothered to run, but he will if he is begged to do so.

I think Huma has shared enough secrets with her husband that Carlos Danger could be the dragon slayer in the 2016 democrat race. This is especially true if he is divorced by then and looking for revenge.

I expect a broader Democratic field than those listed. If any of the following three run, they could all beat her:

Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, and Cuomo.

Booker may not. But I do not see him sitting pat in the Senate for long. Patrick is running though. I live in MA and know the guy fairly well: he loves himself. He is term limited and out of office next year, he will be looking for something to do.

Think about it. A black Democrat with business/legal experience and a track record of handling a terrorist attack well in the national spotlight. That will be a stark contrast with Hillary.
(I stress, I don’t like him; but he can make this case in a Dem primary).

The dems ran on race in 2008 and 2012 and now they’ll run on gender issues which has already started. They have no ideas so they pander, lie and exaggerate. If you don’t vote for Hillary you’re a misogynist.

For those who may have missed my post from last night on the bin Laden thread-if this mistake had been perpetrated by Sarah Palin, the Democrat Media would be running with it 24/7:

On Monday, Hillary Clinton botched the name of civil and voting rights icon Medgar Evers while addressing a group of lawyers in San Francisco in a speech about voting rights.

In a speech that denounced Voter ID efforts, Clinton referred to Medgar Evers as “Medger Evans” while discussing how one of her mentors defused a volatile situation in Mississippi after Evers, who courageously organized voter registration efforts in the South, was assassinated.

1) Hillary could merely be a distraction until a reason for an Enabling Act can be concocted. Further, the Democrat infighting [q.v. yesterdays NYT hit piece on the Clintons, surely originating from the White House] and their fondness for extralegal solutions may preclude her being available for any putative 2016 election.

2) Christie as the Republican candidate in said putative election.

He was quoted in an interview in the February 14, 2013 Glen Falls New York Chronicle, saying, “I’m not much different from Andrew Cuomo. I probably agree with him on 98 percent of the issues.”

And he has been joined at the … body part of choice … to Obama since before the last election.

Given his ongoing attacks from October 2012 to date on any Republican more conservative than his Leftist, Statist, New York idol; if the Institutional Republicans maneuver him into the nomination, it is going to be a short campaign.

Running as a Democrat, he is a far better fit.

3)

We’d all be hard pressed to find a candidate that we agree 100% with. When it comes down to the general election, it’s a good bet you’ll agree with the GOP’er over the Dem.

It’s not about “party loyalty”.

It is also about trust. If the candidate named, in any putative 2016 election, is inserted by the Institutional Republicans and has been attacking Conservatives for years; why should I believe any lies he tells during the campaign about how he will fight for Conservative values if elected? We have been fooled before. We gave the Institutional Republicans the House in 2010 to fight Obama and Obamacare. They have cravenly yielded on every issue since. In fact, their very first act was to remove any Conservatives from any positions of power in the House.

The Institutionals have over-ridden the base for the last two elections and given us collaborationist moderate presidential candidates designed to lose. We held our noses, campaigned for them, voted for them, and they lost as planned by the RNC. The new party rules adopted at the last National Convention allow them to rig the nomination even easier.

I think Huma has shared enough secrets with her husband that Carlos Danger could be the dragon slayer in the 2016 democrat race. This is especially true if he is divorced by then and looking for revenge.

Even with all of that going for her, she lost to a first-term Senate backbencher with an utterly unremarkable career outside of a few speeches.

Unremarkable, other than being black. That clinched it for him. Unless Booker, Patrick, or some other black Dem runs (or, heaven forbid, they accelerate their strategy & run a ghey or muslim!), womanhood is the next identity-politics qualifier, so Hillary! will be a shoo-in.

I think the Clinton’s and the Democrat establishment are going to be aghast at the ferocity and number of challengers for the nomination.

Ambition is a mighty whip.

H.R. Clinton ( Despite the same initials as HR Elizabeth II and the fact that certain progressive have already said her nomination would be a “Coronation” ) is an older, white, woman, who has no experience at all governing. She did a short stint as a legislator and authored no significant legislation while she was there. She has an abysmal record as Secretary of State. She has the baggage of the Lewinksy scandal, as well as the White Water investigations and the allegations of insider stock deals. There is also the fact that the Obama campaign accused the Clinton’s of racism, successfully smearing them, during the campaign in ’08 and that smear stuck with the base. IT was also the Clinton campaign that originated the ‘Birther’ movement. There is the Clinton Foundation, which reeks of cronyism and nepotism to the point that even the NYTIMES saw fit to expose it.

I think the NYTimes running the article regarding the Clinton Foundation is the first shot across H.R. Clinton’s capacious bow.

What happened to Mark Warner? I thought for sure he was going to run as the “corporateDemocratwhounderstandstheeconomy” candidate. Hell, McCain and Graham would probably campaign for him if the ‘Pubs ran a conservative.

This is why we need to pretend to fear Hillary – keep her unelectable thighs in public view for as long as possible.

Even the most committed pothead Democrat is going to have a hard time pulling the lever (it’s pretty difficult, especialy for blacks and seniors, as the most affected, so they claim) for the Cackler-in-Chief.

The only people who love the Clintons are the Clintons and there aren’t that many of them. Obots hate the Clintons too – they won’t vote because the Utopia change did not arrive on time as the Messiah had hoped. Nutty radicals are not going to get anything while the Clintonista swine feed at the public trough, so they will return to their college common rooms to resume molding young minds.